Janissary, not every Iranian is a Aryan agenda pusher. So show some respect and provide links next time. You sound like an ignorant pan-nationalist when all you do is glorify your certain groups of people without proper knowledge of their history.

Mongols called Alans Asu or Asud. there was ever an Alan tribe among Mongols during Northern Yuan dynasty, whose leader Alutai was very powerful, but he was defeated by Oirad Mongols in the end, his Asud tribe became one of 3 tribes of Yungsiyebu tumen later.

In spite of their origins, the Alans should have been very Turkified when they arrived to Yuan capital Dadu, although probably with a strong Iranian feature, Like today's Uzebs i guess.

^ Indeed, but their language essentially remained Iranic. It belongs to the Eastern Branch of the Iranian language group like Scytho-Sarmatian and modern Pashtun and developed independently of Western Iranian languages like Persian and must therefore possess more archaic characteristics.

Hence, Alans were a Turk tribe. This fact can also corroborated by that there is a separate tribal group called Alans has remained among the modern Turkmen up to now. The names of these Alan kins are interesting to recall: Mirshi-kar, Boluk-aul , Eshek, Aiak-Char, Kara-mogul, Tokuz, Ker, Belke etc. Alan tribal groups live also in Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan and Altai. Among the Altai tribes, there is a tribal group called "Alandan kelgen ", i. e. "those who came from the plain". Moreover, the word "alan" conveys the idea of "plain" or "valley" in many Turk languages. The nearest neighbors of Karachais, Megrelians, refer to Karachais as Alans up to now. No Caucasian nationality uses this ethnonym, except Balkarians and Karachais.(2)

He says that Alans called themselves "As" - how does he know that? He does not cite any source.

Yes Cyrus was killed while on campaign against the Massagetae. I have said before, Persians and Medians were tribes like the Massagetae, Apa Sakae etc. And they were nomads in the same ranges they first started appearing in Western Iran around 900BC as recorded by the Assyrians, gradually they settled [and were used as mercenaries by the Elamites] and later they usurped the existing non-Iranian civilisations like the Elamites, Babylonians and Assyrians.

Map of Scythian tribes:

Their migration was very similar to the Turkic migrations. You know Seljuk, empire? You know how it started? At first they were being used as mercenaries by the Iranic Samanid and the Arabic Abbasid Dynsties, eventually they seized power from the Samanids and turned the Abbasids into a puppet state. During and before the period of the Samanids most of Central Asia was Iranic, that is why most of the city names are Iranian, such as Balkh, Bukhara, Samarqand etc. The people of these areas at that time constituted the descendedants of Scythians.

Read this link below, you will notice at the bottom there are sources for the information in this article.

I am not trying to steal Scythians/Sarmatians/Alans from Turkic history and if every credible source of information said that they were Turkic or proto-Turks I wouldn't care, I would just think they were Turks. But this is not the case. The fact is that every academic article and book written on the subject states in no uncertain terms that they were Iranic.

You can continue to believe they were Turkic if you wish, I form my belief from the literature of all credible academics/historians.

Hence, Alans were a Turk tribe. This
fact can also corroborated by that there is a separate tribal group
called Alans has remained among the modern Turkmen up to now. The names
of these Alan kins are interesting to recall: Mirshi-kar, Boluk-aul ,
Eshek, Aiak-Char, Kara-mogul, Tokuz, Ker, Belke etc. Alan tribal groups
live also in Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan and Altai. Among the Altai tribes,
there is a tribal group called "Alandan kelgen ", i. e. "those who came
from the plain". Moreover, the word "alan" conveys the idea of "plain" or "valley" in many Turk languages. The
nearest neighbors of Karachais, Megrelians, refer to Karachais as Alans
up to now. No Caucasian nationality uses this ethnonym, except
Balkarians and Karachais.(2)

It really makes sense I think.

No it doesn't!
We have clear evidence that not only were the Alans Sarmatians, they predate modern Turkish languages.
Nor is it particuarly surprising that modern Alan remnants livng
amongst Turkish speakers for 1000 years have Turkish style names.

nb. Alan for 'low land' is a word taken into many Turkish
languages from base Iranian languages. Your article even points out
that as is a loan word taken into Turkish from Iranian languages long,
long ago.

Thanks for inviting me here. I am Ossetian and have maybe more detailed point of view ror Alans. I think they were Iranian. I tell some simple fondations my point is based on.

1. Center of Noth Caucasus was last strongholds of Alans. The most late information about them is from there. By most geographic documents the theritory of late Alania conside with theritory of modern Ossetia. Only accurate geographic landmark of country of Alans is Darialan, the Gates of Alans, (Darial Gorge) is in Ossetia.

2. All Georgian historians associate Alans with "Osi" (Asi) who are Ossetians. Georgian historical documents have no links to "Alans", but reffer to "Osi".

3. Armenian History, 7th. The historian count tribes of Caucasia and mentions "people of Alans, Ashtigor. Behind Digors also live Alans...". The source accurately calls As-Digor as country of Alans and Digors as Alanian people. Digors are minor Ossetian sub-nation.

4. Zelenchuk incription - only long Alanian text. The inscription is written in Digor Ossetian. I can disscuss it, translate it as clear Digorian. No Turkish translation I have seen yet.

5. As Alans called themself "AAs" I see only Ossetians has "As" cults in respect to other Caucasus nations. Even now Ossetians put "as" particle to names (Example: As-Temur, Batr-az, Totr-az, Roman-az, Dzer-assa, Tajmur-as, Part-as... there are several dozens of such names).

Those are my simple but quite strong arguments. Can you give me so simple and strong arguments why Alans would be Turks?

He says that Alans called themselves "As" - how does he know that? He does not cite any source.

That is how they called themself. There are many sources - Velgelm de Rebrook, Al-Biruni, Al - Masudi, and several others. I hove some links but they are in Russian translation. De Rebrook wrote Alans called themself "AAs". It is rather matches Ossetic phonetics than Turkish. In Ossetian "A" is very long and "AE" is very short. Digor Ossetians tell the country where they are from is As-Digora. My gender is from Asi, as we still remember where we came from. Digor people call Asi modern Balkaria also. However by DNA investigation Balkarians are genitically Digorians and have MtDNA well matches Iranian type (as I understood). I have article http://www.netrover.com/~rous1/cauc.pdf about the research, but I am not so good in the subject.

Why Osetins says the same thing and does that means that they both the same?

I believe they were same nation in past. As I wrote Balkarians match Digor Ossetians by genes, by family names, by culture. Georgian historian and geographer Vachushti Bagrationi (18-th century) wrote about Balkaria (Basiani) as part of Ossetia in past. There are more difference between other Ossetians and Karachays.

Thanks for the clarification bro, I always wondered why Georgians called Alans Ossetian. Also do you know about the Alans who settled in the Zagros? They are known as Alans still but their language has changed to Kurdish.

By the way, have you heard of Dr Kaveh Farrokh? He is an Ossetian/Alan scholar specialising on Iranic culture, empires and people. I think I heard that he is a professor at Vancouver Uni.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum